Loading...
PC MINS 19760928M I N U T E S City of Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commission Regular Adjourned Meeting September 28, 1976 The meeting was called to order at 7:35 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 30942 Hawthorne Boulevard, by Chairperson Shaw. PRESENT: Blue, Hughes, McTaggart, Rosenberg (arrived at 7:39), Shaw ABSENT: None Also present were Director of Planning Sharon Hightower and Associate Planner Gary Weber. MINUTES APPROVAL Mr. Blue proposed the following correc- tions to the minutes: on page 5, under Sign Permit #1, the date in the first and second paragraphs should read "March 9, 1977". Mr. McTaggart proposed the following correction to the minutes: on page 6, last paragraph (above ad3ournment) should read "....amending the code by requiring non-ferris metallic water pipes to be used in the....". On motion of Mr. McTaggart, seconded by Mr. Blue, the minutes of September 14, 1976, were unanimously approved (Mr. Rosenberg was absent) as correc- ted above. Mr. Rosenberg arrived following the vote on the minutes approval. COMMUNICATION Mr. William Hauf, 7449 Via Lorado, and FROM AUDIENCE two other speakers supporting his posi- tion, expressed concern about the status of the Grading Ordinance revi- sions and asked questions about procedure. Director Hightower explained the procedure and said that a public hearing has been scheduled for the Planning Commission meeting of October 12, but explained that it was not possible for her to predict a time table, as no one knew how many hearings would be involved. Regarding his questions on clarification of this code and its relation to his application, Director Hightower suggested that these be discussed in her office, as she did not have the necessary files with her at this time. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT #16 TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 32744 Porto Verde Apartments, Beachview and Nantasket Drives Applicant: Porto Verde Assoc./ E. L. Pearson Director Hightower explained that this public hearing had been continued from the meeting of September 14 to allow the Commissioners the opportunity to thoroughly inspect the project site, and she reviewed the major areas of concern which the Commission had re- quested staff to outline for this meet- ing. Mrs. Shaw reopened the public hearing. Don Davis, of E. L. Pearson, stated regarding field testing for noise, they would prefer that to be a condition of approval rather than doing it at this point due to the high cost involved; there are storage areas planned for each unit; they plan to enclose/screen the parking structure; they have already drawn sketches of decks and balconies; additional guest parking can be provided; there will be sales phasing; there is a tennant treatment plan; and due to the cost, they would rather prepare a detailed landscaping plan, architectural design of garages, and detail of the re- creational facility at a later date. Regarding deferred maintenance, he explained that they would have to prepare an analysis to the satisfaction of the Department of Real Estate. P. C. September 28, 1976 410 III Mrs . Shaw closed the public hearing, reserving the right to reopen at a later time. During discussion, the Commission expressed concern over the following items: there are not individual shut-off valves for each unit; the danger of repair of the plumbing in many units; there are common N drain lines and no indication of insulation; lack of privacy; whether the City meets the type of housing mix the General Plan calls for; the high L-- df~- ePrrer7 �- m� _ -f figure which nay resul-t from eliminating def icien- i� .)-ciresi and whether thep hased selling would affect the development of the k park. It was also pointed out that without the sound testing, the Com- ' mission would have no way of knowing whether or not this project meets those standards. ' ' q) Mr. Davis said they would be required to post bonds to complete construc- ' tion within two years or forfeit the bonds, but added that their time 1 table was for immediate development. He further explained the near bank- ' ruptcy condition of the company and that the purpose of phasing was to allow the financial institution more flexibility. He felt that there O, ) were some basic concepts which had not been covered, and felt there exis- ted some misunderstandings. He asked for a continuance to enable him to present answers to the concerns of the Commission. Rosenberg, seconded Mr. McTaggart, and unanimous) U � On motion by Mr. by gg , unanimously carried, Conditional Use Permit #16 and Tentative Tract No. 32744 was e(-) tabled until such time as the applicant can furnish additional informa- tion and this item can be rescheduled by staff. N � CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT #4 1 Mr. Weber gave the background of the AMENDMENT request and explained that one of the j 30850 Hawthorne Boulevard conditions of the original permit Applicant: Marymount states that courts one through five % \ Racquet Club shall not have windscreens. He said the main issues were whether there would be view obstruction and whether noise would be increased by the screening. Staff recommendation was for approval if the applicant could prove no significant noise increase. In response to a question, Director Hightower said the intent of the ori- ginal condition was to prevent screening on the outward side of the courts. Ron Sears, 5957 Flambeau, president of the tennis group, showed plans to the Commission and explained that the windscreens were desired to pro- vide visual aid to the players and to eliminate wind and noise within the court. The Commission was shown a sample of the proposed material for the screening which was green nylon mesh. Speaking in opposition were Russ Schweiger, president of La Cresta Home- owners' Association; Bill Meikle, 30846 Via La Cresta; Al Guenther, 30714 Via La Cresta; and Robert King, 30764 Via La Cresta. They expressed con- cern that the screen would increase the noise which is already generating from the courts, particularly in the early morning and late evening hours when there is no wind. Mr. Schweiger suggested increasing the amount of shrubbery as an alternate. During discussion, the Commission expressed concern over adding to the noise level which is reflecting uphill to the residences and agreed that trees and shrubs would absorb the sound. Mr. Rosenberg proposed a motion, which was seconded by Mr. Blue, denying the request, based on the findings that the proposed screening would gen- erate additional noise to adjacent properties. After more discussion among the Commissioners and the applicant, the above motion and second were withdrawn, and Mr. Rosenberg proposed a mo tion, which was seconded by Mr. Blue, and unanimously carried, to amend condition no. 6 of Resolution 74-84 C.C. (approving Conditional Use Per- mit #4) to read as follows: "Courts one, two, three, four, and five shall not have windscreens; however, appropriate screening landscaping may be installed, not to exceed the height of the fence and pursuant to a plan approved by the Director of Planning. " P.C. -2- September 28, 1976 RECESS GRADING #99 30555 Oceanaire Drive Applicant: Young & Remington Architects At 10:08 p.m. a brief recess was called. The meeting reconvened at 10:16 p.m. with the same members present. Mr. Weber gave the staff report stating that in staff's opinion, there will be no significant view impact and that the grading is not excessive considering the site size and scale of the project. Staff recommendation was for approval with conditions. Greg Schneider, architect, spoke in favor of the project, and there were no speakers in opposition. After a brief discussion, Mr. Rosenberg proposed a motion, seconded by Mr. McTaggart, and unanimously carried, approving Grading Application #99 subject to the following conditions: 1. Additional landscape treatment and/or grading treatment in the form of "rolled" slopes in order to soften the transition from the graded rear slope to the steep natural slope. 2. Grading for driveway access shall be revised so that no portion there- of exceeds a 20% slope. GRADING #56 30104 Cartier Applicant: Butler Housing Corporation Mr. Weber explained the background of this request which had been tabled at a previous meeting for plan revision. The applicant had submitted a letter to the Planning Commission at its August 19 meeting requesting reconsi- deration of the grading plan, adding that the plans have not been revised. Staff recommendation is for denial. Doug Hoon, Butler Housing Corporation, and Al Beran, Engineering Services Corporation, discussed the project and reviewed the plans, and the Commis- sion discussed with the applicant alternative proposals, such as changing the location of the proposed house. After Commission discussion, Mr. Blue proposed a motion, which was secon- ded by Mr. Rosenberg, to deny Grading Application #56, based upon exces- sive grading being performed in the over 35 percent slope area. AYES: Blue, Hughes, McTaggart, Rosenberg, Shaw NOES: None ABSENT: None The applicant was advised of the ten-day period in which to appeal this decision to the City Council. VARIANCE #9 Director Hightower stated a letter had Hawthorne Boulevard, eastline, been received from the landowner, between Crest Road and Palos Verdes Seaview Homes, requesting Rhone Drive a continuance until the next meeting. Applicant: Orange Coast Sign Company Mrs. Shaw opened the public hearing. As there were no speakers, the public hearing was continued to the meeting of October 12. MINOR EXCEPTION PERMIT #6 APPEAL Mr. Weber reviewed the background of 28210 Lomo Drive this request for the retention of a Applicant: Burton R. Reagan six-foot redwood wall on the rear property line. Staff recommendation is that the original denial be upheld because no evidence of practical difficulties, unnecessary hardships, or inconsistent results have been demonstrated. P.C. -3- September 28, 1976 Burton Reagan, the applicant, said he felt special consideration should be given to those homes backing up to Hawthorne Boulevard. He showed the Commission several objects which have recently been thrown into his neigh- bor's yards, adding that he has not had this problem since putting up his six-foot wall. He felt the very location of these homes presented a hard- ship, and expressed concern over the safety of his son playing in his yard without the protection of the six-foot wall. Speaking in support of Mr. Reagan's statements were Mr. and Mrs. Alan Crofts, 28304 Lomo Drive, who stated they have had rocks, bottles, etc., thrown into their yard, once breaking their screen, but also pointed out that the lack of privacy is a very important factor, and that there are always people looking over their fence and into their home. Mr. and Mrs. Ronald LeBorgne, the previous owners of 28204 Lomo Drive, said that besides the trash and the dangerous missiles being thrown in their yard, they had also to deal with profanity from kids walking by and looking over the fence. During discussion, the Commission expressed concern over the right to pri- vacy, and felt this wall was in no way a view obstruction. On motion of Mr. Rosenberg, seconded by Mr. McTaggart, and unanimously carried, the appeal was approved, thereby granting Minor Exception Permit No. 6, based on the finding that the six-foot wall is considered neces- sary to ensure privacy for the residents. STAFF REPORTS Director Hightower explained that the City Council had referred the Antenna Ordinance back to the Planning Commis- sion for reconsideration, and that it was necessary for the Commission to formally move to reconsider the item. Mr. McTaggart moved to reconsider the Antenna Ordinance, said motion was seconded by Mr. Blue, and carried, with Mr. Hughes abstaining. A letter from De De Hicks regarding this ordinance was distributed to the Commissioners. The Commission discussed different approaches, and decid- ed to wait until its next meeting to determine which approach it wishes to take. It was pointed out that the City Council would be setting up priorities at its worksession on the 7th of October. Mr. McTaggart said he would submit some information and possible revisions at their meeting on the 12th of October. Director Hightower said that copies of the draft grading ordinance had been included in the Commissioners' agenda packets tonight, but that staff would make its presentation at the public hearing on the 12th. Mr. Hughes distributed copies of notes he has made on his study of the grading ordinance, and also copies of computer runs he had prepared. Director Hightower informed the Commission that Mr. Mohr has appealed Conditional Use Permit #18, granting three antenna poles to Mr. Wallace. She also reminded the Commission that Tentative Tract No. 32614 and the appeal of Variance No. 6 were scheduled on the October 5 Council agenda. She also brought to the Commission's attention the project status report which had been prepared for submission to the City Council. The report was approved by the Commission. COMMISSION REPORTS Mrs. Shaw said the City Council has granted a 90 -day appeal period to the Hildreths, and some members had ex- pressed concern that the Commission may have denied the item for aes- thetic reasons. She said the City Attorney has not yet contacted the Director or herself. Mr. Hughes said he would attend the October 5 City Council meeting to represent the Commission. ADJOURNMENT At 12:38 a.m. it was moved, seconded and carried to adaourn the meeting to October 12, 1976. P.C. -4- September 28, 1976